I like Anne, she did great and her character was very in line with what is the modern take on Catwoman, that said, Michelle is far more memorable. I wish TDKR hadn't neutered the "cat" concept so much; otherwise Anne did great, but Michelle just stands out, like Julia Newmar.

And if they didn't? What then? Are they 'disrespecting' it? That's such an irrational conclusion to draw.

If they didn't? Then they've basically missed half the basic point of the character.

Which they did.

That half being that she's not just a catburglar...she's someone with some of the metaphorical attributes of a cat. She's someone who likes and identifies with cats. In omitting THAT, they're further missing half the psychological makeup of Catwoman. That this is a woman damaged enough to A, emulate a "Batman" in the first place, and B, to adopt a new identity and to immerse herself in this sort of a self made mythology, and WHY she does that from a psychological and social standpoint.

And yes, in the movie, I know she's not supposed to be those things. In the movie, she's only remotely "Catwoman" because she's a cat burglar and because we all know who she's supposed to be because we know the concept of Catwoman from previous Batman stories.

In my mind, Nolan only presented about a third of what makes Selina Kyle an interesting character. They missed the chance to connect her that much more to Batman, to really explore their parallells and differences and connection to a concept.

Not "going there", for lack of a better term is one more reminder that they're just scratching the surface of the character and her potential to be interesting and relevant to the overall concepts of the Batman mythology, either because they don't understand the character, or because they're, on some level, ashamed of her trappings.

The whole, "she happens to look vaguely catlike when her goggles are raised" thing? Yeah, that's no less "cutesy" and "cartoony" and convenient than calling her "Catwoman" because she wants to be associated as such.

Quote:

So what if they did name a couple of villains? They didn't have to, and the point would still be clear in many cases.

So...the creators obviously cared enough to have those villains own/adopt these new identities, a major theme of this franchise. There's even a whole scene devoted to it in BATMAN BEGINS with Crane. Whereas Selina just seems to be wearing black leather and cat's ear goggles...because its fashionable, I guess.

Heck, as far as names go, in Bane's case, I'd bet that most people don't even know what "bane" means. It's not a very commonly used word. For all they know, that's just the character's name.

Quote:

I feel that while The Joker and Bane make the respective characters more ominous (largely because they don't have real identities underneath as Selina and Dent do), there are times when giving them a name does not have that effect, and is more of just a cute gimmick.

This is the problem as I see it. Those "cute gimmicks" do not have to be portrayed as only a gimmick, any more than Batman dressing as a bat should just be Batman arbitrarily dressing as a bat, with no deeper significance to his character and the mythology. Those "gimmicks", as you call them. are the elements that form the core of the Batman mythology, and always have been. And they're some of the most unique things about the characters.

Quote:

Catwoman is one of those cases. Two-Face at least was explained as a nickname based on his reputation.

And Catwoman's nickname couldn't be a nickname based on her reputation?

Quote:

And even so, they don't go around calling him "TWO-FACE!! Hey, put down the gun, Two-Face!" for the rest of the movie (looking at you, Batman Forever). They still call him Harvey.

And no one's asking to have her called "Catwoman" all the time. No one's even saying it's neccessary for her to be called "Catwoman" in the film.

I get the whole "I'm Batman" thing not working so well. And, like Batman, Scarecrow, etc, there's no reason she has to name herself "Catwoman", either.

Quote:

You could take the 'her reputation names her' approach to Catwoman as well, but it's more likely that they'd just refer to her as a cat burglar than come up with a counterpart name to Batman.

Is it? This is a woman who is essentially in costume in a more grounded world. I would imagine that in a world with "Batman", it wouldn't be too hard for the press to run with "Catwoman" if a woman dressed in a catlike motif appeared on the scene.

I like Anne, she did great and her character was very in line with what is the modern take on Catwoman, that said, Michelle is far more memorable. I wish TDKR hadn't neutered the "cat" concept so much; otherwise Anne did great, but Michelle just stands out, like Julia Newmar.

I agree. Anne did a fantastic job, but Michelle was more iconic.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

If people are going to use the lack of anyone saying "Catwoman" in TDKR against the performance or characterization well...there's not much else to say. That is just such a picky fanboy complaint. Where is the anger at the beloved Avengers for never calling Hawkeye Hawkeye? Is there any outrage at the Iron Man movies for not calling either of its first two villains by their comic book names?

I think saying Pffeifer had the better costume is more iconic is a much better argument. I disagree, at least on being more iconic, but at least it is not semantics.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

I preferred Anne since her Selina wasn't crazy. And I'm as much "girl power" as the next feminist, but I'm much more of a fan of "showing not telling." TDKR's Selina was badass without having to say it or be ostentatious about it. In fact, most of the time she pretended she was helpless and then whupped ass when everyone least expected it.

Michelle's Selina is obviously more iconic because it was so over-the-top.

It was just more interesting, really. Anne's Selina is more of a cipher. She is, on the whole, bland apart from some oddly expressed flirtatious comments. Pfieffer's Catwoman might be considered to be more sexualised, but she was built into a narrative of rebirth and empowerment. Though dated, she doesn't really feel like male wish fulfillment to the same extent as Anne's, who comes accross merely as a thin woman in tight spandex who bends over motorcycles a lot.

__________________"Myth and high culture have much in common. Each is concerned to idealise the human condition, to lift it free from contingencies". -Sir Roger ScrutonLoveFreedom?PENCE 2018

I think it's easy enough to just chalk this one up to taste. Both were great Catwomen that fit their respective films like a glove.

In terms of sexiness, they were equal to me but just sexy in different ways. When Anne says "Still don't trust me, huh. How can we change that?"...the suggestiveness of that line and her delivery of it is just as hot to me as when Michelle licks Keaton's face. Anne's Catwoman was clearly a sexual being but she was just more subtle about it. And that made it even more tantalizing, while being tasteful.

I preferred Anne since her Selina wasn't crazy. And I'm as much "girl power" as the next feminist, but I'm much more of a fan of "showing not telling." TDKR's Selina was badass without having to say it or be ostentatious about it. In fact, most of the time she pretended she was helpless and then whupped ass when everyone least expected it.

Michelle's Selina is obviously more iconic because it was so over-the-top.

Anne's acting was cringeworthy in that scene. As it was the whole movie. Her character was not believable in the slightest.

Michelle was over the top, but the emotional journey her character went through made it seem more real. She had a better motivation. And the whole love/hate thing with Batman I definitely think was done better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regwec

It was just more interesting, really. Anne's Selina is more of a cipher. She is, on the whole, bland apart from some oddly expressed flirtatious comments. Pfieffer's Catwoman might be considered to be more sexualised, but she was built into a narrative of rebirth and empowerment. Though dated, she doesn't really feel like male wish fulfillment to the same extent as Anne's, who comes accross merely as a thin woman in tight spandex who bends over motorcycles a lot.

Pfieffer's Catwoman had a complex sexuality which wasn't just sassiness, which was all that Hathaway's Catwoman was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think it's easy enough to just chalk this one up to taste. Both were great Catwomen that fit their respective films like a glove.

In terms of sexiness, they were equal to me but just sexy in different ways. When Anne says "Still don't trust me, huh. How can we change that?"...the suggestiveness of that line and her delivery of it is just as hot to me as when Michelle licks Keaton's face. Anne's Catwoman was clearly a sexual being but she was just more subtle about it. And that made it even more tantalizing, while being tasteful.

Anne Hathaway overplayed it and so wasn't sexy at all to me. That fake sassiness was obviously out of character for her and it felt awkward. Michelle had a more real sexuality, that didn't seem forced unlike with Hathaway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I don't like the face-lick scene to be honest. I'm always like "ew, gross, Catwoman licked the bottom of Batman's nose..."

What's the matter with ya? That's the most red-blooded, hot sexual scene in any comic book movie, ever.

Anne Hathaway overplayed it and so wasn't sexy at all to me. That fake sassiness was obviously out of character for her and it felt awkward. Michelle had a more real sexuality, that didn't seem forced unlike with Hathaway.

1000% disagree. Hence why I said it's all a matter of taste. Nothing felt fake about her performance to me.

If they didn't? Then they've basically missed half the basic point of the character.

The name alone does not do that in Catwoman's case.

Quote:

That half being that she's not just a catburglar...she's someone with some of the metaphorical attributes of a cat. She's someone who likes and identifies with cats. In omitting THAT, they're further missing half the psychological makeup of Catwoman. That this is a woman damaged enough to A, emulate a "Batman" in the first place, and B, to adopt a new identity and to immerse herself in this sort of a self made mythology, and WHY she does that from a psychological and social standpoint.

You're implying that your preferred version of Catwoman is the only valid interpretation. I don't find these things necessary to get the core of the character across. She doesn't have to have be psychotic, have an affinity for cats, and she doesn't have to be inspired by Batman. Those are, frankly, superficialities; they're optional.

The quality of a character portrayal extends beyond basic gimmickry. The impression you're giving me is that they are the sole dictators of worth.

Do I appreciate these angles when they're done? Sure, I'm open to alternations and keeping things fresh. These elements can be pleasant, so long as the cheese is minimal -- and in some cases, a little cheese is tolerable.

But when the director expresses that he's going after something grounded and cheeseless, you should expect adherence to that.

The funny bit is, I wish he had adhered to it more.

Anyway - to say 'I don't prefer Nolan's approach' is one thing, but to say 'She wasn't Catwoman' is another.

I mean, it should have been obvious this was gonna be a different take. The question is: Are you open to that or not?

Quote:

And yes, in the movie, I know she's not supposed to be those things. In the movie, she's only remotely "Catwoman" because she's a cat burglar and because we all know who she's supposed to be because we know the concept of Catwoman from previous Batman stories.

The character's behavior similarity does go deeper than 'she's a cat burglar'.

She has motivations, intentions, and personality/interactivity traits that evoke the character wonderfully. She's also in a mirrored (to the traditional version) predicament with her life - living conditions, rough past, has a female non-hero sidekick of sorts.

Quote:

In my mind, Nolan only presented about a third of what makes Selina Kyle an interesting character. They missed the chance to connect her that much more to Batman, to really explore their parallells and differences and connection to a concept.

Oh certainly. They could have explored it more, and definitely missed the opportunity to do so, I agree. The film just had a bit too much on it's plate to.

I'm also not a die-hard defender of Rises, so don't mistake the argument to be of that nature.

The problem is really that the film is 'the end' of the story, or so we understand thus far. Their chemistry was the beginning of something well done, but needed to be expanded upon before they just up and ran away together. Too soon.

Not only that, but the focus on Blake taking over as Batman with Bruce retiring took away some time that could've been devoted to developing Catwoman more.

Maybe if Anne gets her way and does a Catwoman solo spin-off, Batman will be a supporting character and we'll get to see some fleshing out. Dunno how to make that canon with Nolan's films though. They'll have to untangle that one themselves. lol

Quote:

The whole, "she happens to look vaguely catlike when her goggles are raised" thing? Yeah, that's no less "cutesy" and "cartoony" and convenient than calling her "Catwoman" because she wants to be associated as such.

The idea is that it's far more subtle than going out of her way to make a kitty costume. Not that I dislike kitty costumes necessarily, but Nolan was going for incidental.

Could she get the nickname from the media based on the incidental ears? That would be fine. But just 'she loves cats, she has a whip, so she's Catwoman' isn't very inspiring to me, comparatively.

At least Burton had her reborn by cats.. gnawing on her... Whether or not that's literal or symbolic is debatable - I prefer the latter, but I think Tim was tasteful in leaving it ambiguous. It made it a fun semi-fantasy movie.

Whereas Selina just seems to be wearing black leather and cat's ear goggles...because its fashionable, I guess.

Because she's a slinky spy that uses feminine wiles to get her an edge in a pinch. I don't think it's too difficult to stretch your imagination there.

Quote:

Heck, as far as names go, in Bane's case, I'd bet that most people don't even know what "bane" means. It's not a very commonly used word. For all they know, that's just the character's name.

When I was a kid, people didn't say the word much then either, but I understood it enough when I watched Batman: The Animated Series.

"____ is the bane of my existence" has been a popular phrase for a while. That's probably how I knew.

I try not to underestimate anyone's intelligence - especially kids, as I said in another post earlier.

Quote:

This is the problem as I see it. Those "cute gimmicks" do not have to be portrayed as only a gimmick, any more than Batman dressing as a bat should just be Batman arbitrarily dressing as a bat, with no deeper significance to his character and the mythology.

Well, we are in agreement there.

Quote:

Those "gimmicks", as you call them. are the elements that form the core of the Batman mythology, and always have been. And they're some of the most unique things about the characters.

I still don't find it necessary for Catwoman. I also don't think it adds anything profound. In Burton's take, and in the Animated Series, it seems to just be some controlled and fun flamboyance. The books vary.

Quote:

And Catwoman's nickname couldn't be a nickname based on her reputation?

I ended up concluding that it could, but that didn't appear to be the argument up until this point.

You were saying that the name defines her. I don't think it does.

Quote:

No one's even saying it's neccessary for her to be called "Catwoman" in the film.

Weren't you? Why are we arguing?

Quote:

I get the whole "I'm Batman" thing not working so well. And, like Batman, Scarecrow, etc, there's no reason she has to name herself "Catwoman", either.

Then we have more similar standards than I realized.

Quote:

Is it? This is a woman who is essentially in costume in a more grounded world. I would imagine that in a world with "Batman", it wouldn't be too hard for the press to run with "Catwoman" if a woman dressed in a catlike motif appeared on the scene.

I doubted the likelihood, but I didn't say it was impossible. I also said I would be fine with it.